Presentation on theme: "RESULTS OF THE PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE TO MEASURE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN Tested by INEGI-Mexico Second Meeting of Experts to measure violence."— Presentation transcript:
RESULTS OF THE PROPOSED INTERNATIONAL QUESTIONNAIRE TO MEASURE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN Tested by INEGI-Mexico Second Meeting of Experts to measure violence against women Eva Gisela Ramírez Rodríguez Subdirección de desarrollo de estadísticas de género y violencia contra las mujeres Ginebra, 18 de noviembre de 2010
Objectives of questionnaire Develop and test a questionnaire and methodology for applying a survey enabling one to obtain information to measure violence against women, with the indicators approved by the United Nations Statistical Commission. The objective of the data collection instrument is to facilitate countries collecting a set of information to estimate the prevalence of physical and sexual violence by an intimate partner. The test should simulate regular survey procedures, whether as a module of another survey or as a specific survey.
INEGI undertook in April 2010 to carry out a Test of the International Questionnaire to measure violence against women. Reasons for participating To strengthen work done by the Group of Friends towards defining guidelines To contribute its experience, enabling it to carry out the test in less time and with fewer resources To support work by DG-CEPAL in the region To have a proven proposal for Spanish-speaking countries Participation of INEGI
General Structure of questionnarie UNECE
General Structure of questionnarie tested by INEGI
UNECEINEGI Informed Consent and PrivacySection III. Section III. Consent and Privacy Relationship information from respondentSection IV. Woman’s Status and Partner Identification Partner Violence Current or former partner violenceSection V. Current Partner Relationship Section VI. Last relationship with a partner Previous partner violenceSection VII Previous partners Non-partner ViolenceSection VIII. Other people Completion of interviewSection IX. End of interview Proposed Structure and Tested Structure
1.Format 2.Translation or interpretation adjustments 3.Structure. The section on partner violence was segmented into three blocks: violence by current partner; violence by the last or most recent partner and violence by some previous partner (for those saying that they have had two or more partners), while the proposal in English has two blocks. 4.Inclusion of sociodemographic and context variables regarding traits of the women and of their current or most recent relationship. 5.Inclusion of other test questions of specific interest. 6.Inclusion of some acts of violence that were not considered for the purpose of corroborating feasibility. Changes and adjustments
MAIN CONTRIBUTIONS Definition of the partner in a wide sense, not limited to marriage or living together, including boyfriends and couples not living together. There is a significant impact on data if the definition of partner is different. Inquiries about violence by any partner prior to the current or last one. Informant’s consent
INFORMATION COLLECTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT INFORMATION COLLECTED BY THIS INSTRUMENT TYPES AND TRAITS OF THE RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CURRENT OR LAST PARTNER THAT WOMEN 15 OR OLDER HAVE HAD VIOLENCE BY PARTNER(S): Current partner for women living together, married and those with a boyfriend or partner Last partner for separated, divorced and widowed women and those who had a boyfriend or partner Partners prior to the current or last partner, for women who have had 2 or more partners, husbands or boyfriends during their lifetime. OTHERS VIOLENCE
Test Objectives Observe the informant’s understanding of and reactions to the terms and concepts included in the questionnaire questions Learn the extent of difficulty in detecting acts and stories of violence Evaluate the adequacy of the classifications defined in the answer choices Verify the correct identification of subpopulations based on questions about marital status and the condition of the current and previous partner Verify proper flow of the questionnaire, sequences, filters and passes Measure the average interview time 10
Criteria for the selection of sampling areas Define a sample in geographical areas where there is a greater probability of selecting cases of women who experienced violence. The test would be restricted to some geographical areas that displayed prevalence of physical and sexual violence above the national mean, based on the information of ENDIREH The sample was limited to the States of Jalisco and Oaxaca that in 2006 showed high rates of prevalence in physical violence by partners (20.3% and 22.76% respectively). Sample was: 354 households in Oaxaca and 250 in Jalisco 11
Total housing units selected by state, municipality and town
Operational organización for fieldwork ParticipantsOaxacaJalisco Interviewers1211 Observers54 Team leaders33 Drivers33 Total2321 Observer team accompanied the interviewers to observe the interview and record information on the operation of some key aspects of the functioning of the questionnaire: Sequences of references periods Passes/Filters Understanding of violence including the identification of partners.
Interviewer Profile ExperienceYesNoNo response Survey interviewer or census 1670 Interviewer or in other related surveys 1229 Experience and Participation in Related Surveys Includes: National Survey on the Dynamics of Family Relations, 2003 or 2006, National Survey Population Dynamics 2009 and National Survey on Dating Violence, 2007 Academic level and knowledge area Science s Biological Sciences Economic Administrativ e No response Total Technical or high school level Bachelor or profesional level Postgraduate11 Total Education and areas of knowledge
Results of collecting data Out of the total housing units visited (632), a complete interview was conducted with an eligible woman in 396 (62.7%) of them, while the number of housing units uninhabited and with no occupants was high at 25.6%: 28% in Oaxaca and 22.1% in Jalisco. Result Outcome of the visit JaliscoOaxacaTotal% Complete interview with elegible woman Complete interview without eligible woman Interview without information from elegible woman Incomplete Interview Delayed or inadequate informant interview Negative No occupants Abandoned dwelling Another situation85132 Total
Average time of interview Result of interview Average Time Minimun 1 Time Maximun Time 1. Full interview with woman elected Complete interview without woman elected Interview without informing women elected Interview incomplete Interview with woman electedCases% Selected women interviewed No women interviewed elected256.3 Total Interview Length. Only 15 questionnaires was the length of the interview omitted or recorded incorrectly. The average time for applying the questionnaire with the selected women was 25.1 minutes.
CORE ASPECTS OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE EVALUATION 1.Performance of the questions to identify the type of partner relationship and interview sequence. 1.Clarity and pertinence of the questions to identify the number of partners the woman has had during her life. 2.Pertinence, comprehension and interpretation of the partner concept. 3.Effectiveness of the instrument and of the instructions to detect acts of violence according to the relationship status of the current or last partner. 4.Suitability and comprehension of acts of violence included by kind of violence. 5.Clarity of the instrument and of the instructions for handling temporary passes and violence frequency. 6.Performance of the questions to record the frequency of acts and events or episodes of violence. 7.Usefulness of the instrument to identify cases of women claiming to be divorced, separated or widows but who have a relationship with a current partner. 8.Usefulness of the instrument to identify violence by another or other partners previous to the current or last relationship. 9.Usefulness of the instrument to identify violence by any person other than the partner, by sets of the same kind of acts. 10.Performance of the introductory questions about consent and privacy.
Methodology to assess the questionnaire Database raised questionnaires without validation or consistency review Parallel database to identify sequence errors and consistency Questionnaires observation raised confronted with questionnaires Reports from the observers and interviewers 18
Advantages and limitations 19
A key aspect of this test was to evaluate the application of these two criteria are usually in another type of survey is not considered and that it was highly relevant because: a. Respect the right of women to refuse to discuss these issues b. Ensure privacy and safety of respondents and interviewers Obtaining consent and verifying privacy
Identification of the Partner Relationship Class / Status of WomenTotal Total Recode No inconsistencies With inconsistencies 1. With current partner % 4 1.4% % 294 a) Married b) A common-law spouse750 c) Separated, divorced or widowed with boyfriend5167 d) Single with boyfriend e) Women with boyfriend 3 2. No current partner, but with former partner % 2 2.3% % Never have had a partner % 1 5.0% % Without identifying relationship status077 Total % % % Results of Identification of the Partner Relationship
The data show that: The questions proved to be very consistent. In 96.5% of the cases, the interviewers managed to correctly identify the existence or inexistence of a relationship with a current or last partner, or that the woman had never had any kind of partner relationship. Three important findings were evident in these results The questions and their sequence are pertinent for identifying the current partner relationship Interviewers generally read the questions textually; nevertheless, there is an important number of cases where it could be seen that they failed to apply this rule. This is due to a good number of cases of biases or assumptions that do not necessarily correspond to the situation of the interviewed women; therefore, this indication needs to be underscored during training. Women understand what “have a relationship of partner, fiancé or boyfriend” means since an explanation was needed in only 31 cases. 22 Identification of the Partner Relationship
Number of partner reported Married or common-law spouse Separated, divorced, widowed or single with boyfriend Total% Correct cases With problems of "Pass" Inconsistencies2131 No response Total Although it was the one with the largest number of inconsistencies... very useful to identify the number of partners and their experiences of violence
Number of partner reported Distribution of all women by current marital status and partners reported Current marital status With current partner With former partner With previous partner Never had a partner Total women 1. Married A common-law spouse Separated, divorced and widowed Single Non specif situacion313 Total
Violent acts included The acts of violence included proved to be adequate for detecting the violence faced by women. Those that presented the main inconsistencies are located in acts of emotional control and economic violence. In the first case, “Does he get angry if you talk to another man?” women deem it is not an attitude limiting their freedom, but like something that “should be” In second case, “Has to give you permission to seek medical care when you need it?, in many cases the women needed explanation. In the case of economic violence, the first two acts of violence do not manage to differentiate between “he does not give enough for expenses” and “he does not give them”.
acts included Violent acts included Consistency was the highest in physical violence. Acts of sexual violence also show a very high proportion of consistency; nevertheless, it was reported that it was not possible to include events of attempted rape. 26
REVIEW OF CONSISTENCY AND SEQUENCE OF THE DATING VIOLENCE CONTROL ACTSConsistent casesInconsistent and no response casesTOTAL Consiste nt cases %Inconsis tent cases %No response in 5.12 and 5.13 Cases% TRIES TO OR MANAGES TO STOP YOU FROM SEEING YOUR FRIENDS? TRIES TO OR MANAGES TO FORBID CONTACT WITH YOUR FAMILY? INSISTS ON KNOWING WHERE YOU ARE AT ALL TIMES? IGNORES YOU OR TREATS YOU INDIFFERENTLY? BECOMES ANGRY WHEN YOU TALK TO ANOTHER MAN? INSINUATES OR ACCUSES YOU OF CHEATING? HAS TO GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO SEEK MEDICAL CARE WHEN YOU NEED IT? FOLLOWS OR SPIES ON YOU?
REVIEW OF CONSISTENCY AND SEQUENCE OF THE DATING VIOLENCE ECONOMIC VIOLENCE ACTSConsistent casesInconsistent and no response casesTOTAL Consistent cases %Inconsistent cases %No response in 5.19 y Cases% REFUSED TO GIVE YOU ENOUGH FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES EVEN WHEN HE HAS MONEY FOR OTHER THINGS? NOT GIVEN OR STOPPED GIVING MONEY FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OR FOR YOUR CHILDREN’S EXPENSES? TAKEN YOUR MONEY AWAY FROM YOU? TAKEN AWAY ARTICLES OR THINGS BELONGING TO YOU? STOPPED OR FORBIDDEN YOU TO WORK OR STUDY? EMOTIONAL VIOLENCE ACTSConsistent casesInconsistent and no response casesTOTAL Consistent cases %Inconsistent cases %No response in 5.14, 5.15, 5.16 Y 5.17 Cases% INSULTED YOU OR MADE YOU FEEL BAD ABOUT YOURSELF BELITTLED OR HUMILIATED YOU IN FRONT OF OTHER PEOPLE? DONE THINGS TO SCARE OR INTIMIDATE YOU? (SUCH AS THROWING THINGS, SHOUTING OR STARING AT YOU IN A SCARY WAY) THREATENED ORALLY TO HURT YOU OR SOMEONE YOU CARE ABOUT?
REVIEW OF CONSISTENCY AND SEQUENCE OF THE DATING VIOLENCE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE ACTS Consistent casesInconsistent and no response cases TOTAL Consistent cases %Inconsistent cases %No response i 5.21, 5.22, 5.23 Y 5.24 Cases% SLAPPED OR THROWN SOMETHING AT YOU THAT COULD HAVE HURT YOU SHOVED YOU OR PULLED YOUR HAIR? HIT YOUR WITH HIS FIST OR WITH AN OBJECT? KICKED OR DRAGGED YOU OR BEAT YOU WITH AN OBJECT? BURNED OR TRIED TO CHOKE OR STRANGLE YOU? THREATENED YOU WITH A GUN, KNIFE OR OTHER WEAPON? ASSAULTED YOU WITH A GUN, KNIFE OR OTHER WEAPON? TIED YOU UP? SEXUAL VIOLENCE ACT TOTAL Consiste nt cases %Inconsist ent cases %No response 5.27, 5.28, 5.29 Y 5.30 Cases% FORCED YOU TO HAVE SEX EVEN THOUGH YOU DID NOT WANT TO? THREATENED, AND YOU HAD SEX WITH HIM OUT OF FEAR OF WHAT HE COULD DO TO YOU? FORCED YOU TO COMMIT A SEX ACT THAT YOU DID NOT WANT TO OR THAT YOU CONSIDER DEGRADING OR HUMILIATING? USED PHYSICAL FORCE TO MAKE YOU HAVE SEX?
Previous partners violence The section on violence by previous partners shows that many acts of violence sometime during their lives were able to be detected, enabling us to create the Prevalence of Violence by a Partner throughout their life Indicator. The inquiry by the recent violence for the former or any previous partners is not entirely appropriate, because in most cases they are partners with whom women no longer have any link. During the collection of information, these questions proved to be inconvenient or considered by respondents as redundant as it had mentioned that this relationship was long over.
Previous partners violence Ever/Some timeLast 12 months More than a year ago Can not remembe r Without informat ion Prevalence ever EMOTIONAL CONTROL EMOTIONAL VIOLENCE ECONOMIC VIOLENCE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE SEXUAL VIOLENCE
Violence of Others Limitations occurred with regards to Violence by other People due to its design and location. It is better to have questions for each setting (at school, at work, in other spaces) or by relation (relatives, acquaintances). Therefore, this section requires further work on design.
Violence of Others Sexual abuse, rape and violence in work that were not declared in the Section of Others, but reported in the final question 9.1 Cases of violence reported in question 9.1Cases Total21 Sexual Abuse:13 Before 15 years old5 Unknow age8 Rape:4 Before 15 years old2 Unknow age2 Violence in workplace4
General indicators Prevalence of violence against women by relationship with perpetrator and by type of violence (1). These estimates are not statistically representative, since the surveyed population corresponds to a specific sample and not a statistical sample. Therefore should be considered only exemplified in the calculation of prevalence.
General indicators (1). These estimates are not statistically representative, since the surveyed population corresponds to a specific sample and not a statistical sample. Therefore should be considered only exemplified in the calculation of prevalence.
LESSONS AND OBSTACLES Consent and Privacy It is very useful to prepare the interview Location is not pertinent The operative area is that when the explicit question about “Consent” is asked the possibility of “Rejection” is opened and this impacts the work load, the coverage as well as the costs of any survey. This tension is between getting consent from women versus the costs this implies upon opening the possibility of a negative reply or rejection. 36
Identified the partner relationship These three questions work quite well to identify the type of partner relationship. The intermediate question allowed us to retrieve 10% of the women who at first said they were separated, divorced or widows and 30% of those who said they were single that did have a partner at the time of the interview. But… The inclusion of a “broad” concept of couple has the advantage of letting the women determine if they have or had a couple or boyfriend. Its necessary to define “partner” better and clarify a more useful definition for couples that do not live together and boyfriends,
Number of partners Questions 5.8 and 6.13 make the informant to perform two tasks, on the one hand she must recall the number of relationships (boyfriends, husbands and/or partners), and on the other hand she must discriminate between more significant or important partners. It is necessary to determine more clearly who should have. This question was very concerned because it was linked to the actual age at marriage and first marriage, which affected the understanding and explanation to interviewers 38
Finally It is necessary to establish strategies to promote comparable information to be generated in response to the guidelines and the proposed instrument, at least two lines: a. Encourage countries with incipient or no on this matter, adopt and adapt this instrument. b. In countries that already have a history or development should be promoted to address the recommendations and bring their instruments to have information comparable 39
Diseño y organización de la prueba Dirección General Adjunta de Información de Gobierno Coordinación Eva Gisela Ramírez Gabriela Pérez Lorena Aguilar Iván Islas Dirección General Adjunta de Encuestas y Registros Administrativos Coordinación Operativa Clara Mantilla Claudia Acosta Vianey Salazar Norma Saavedra Guadalupe Aguilar María de los Angeles Téllez Arcelia Breceda
Equipo de Campo Entrevistadoras Martha Elizabeth Álvarez Carreón Claudia Acosta Careaga María del Rocío Carrrasco Rosales María Eugenia Cortés Baldrán Fania Cielo Galindo Zafra María Concepción García Coba Lorena Georgina Gómez Soto Flor Rebeca González Varela Iris del Rocío López Peña María Elena Lora Arcos Gabriela Macías Guzmán Ma. Guadalupe Martínez Gómez Teresita Muñoz Rodríguez Julieta Carolina Orduña Guzmán María Guillermina Peña Morales Andrea Susana Pulido Tenorio Irma Quijas Briseño Julia Edith Ramírez Soto Carmen Celina Triana Salazar Alejandrina Valencia Páez Teresa de Jesús Vela Briones Lidia I. Velasco Ríos Alicia Vázquez Díaz Responsables de Grupo Juan Acevedo Mario Cortés Miguel Cureses Joel Martínez Vianey Salazar José Segura Observadoras Guadalupe Aguilar Elizabeth Brizuela Matilde Gutiérrez Connie Sotelo Gabriela Pérez Eva Gisela Ramírez Norma Saavedra María de los Angeles Téllez